Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-31MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN AND THE PLANNING BOARD MARCH 31, 1984 A joint meeting of the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board was held in the Selectmen's Meeting Room, Town Office Building, on Saturday, March 31, 1984, at 10:07 a.m. Present were: Acting Chairman Battin and members Eddison, Marshall, McLaughlin, Sacco of the Board of Selectmen; Chairman Smith and members Cripps, Flemings, Sorensen and Uhrig of the Planning Board; Mr. Hutchinson, Town Manager; and Mr. Bowyer, Planning Director. ARTICLES FOR 1984 TOWN MEETING Acting Chairman Battin opened the meeting by stating that Articles 14-18 of the 1984 Annual Town Meeting, proposed amendments to the Zoning By -Law, posed signifi- cant policy questions for the Town. This meeting had been called by the Board of Selectmen to permit a fuller understanding of the issues and provide an opportunity for the two Boards to discuss the issues jointly. The Selectmen were in receipt of advance copies of the Planning Board's report to the Town Meeting on Articles 14-17. 76. Article 14, Parking Requirements: Mr. Sorensen explained that this article is the first of what the Planning Board anticipates will be a series of comprehensive revisions to modernize various sections of the Zoning By -Law. Mr. McLaughlin ex- pressed three concerns: 1) whether the landscaping requirements would reduce the ' potential number of parking spaces,2) the prohibition against charging a fee for off-street parking, and 3) the parking demand factor for medical uses. The Planning Board had a diagram that showed that, due to a reduction in the dimensional re- quirements for parking spaces, both the parking spaces and the landscaping could be located in the overall dimension now required by the Zoning By -Law. The Planning Board said that some communities have found that motorists park on the street to avoid a fee, thus defeating the purpose of requiring off-street parking. The demand factor for medical uses was based on local surveys and national data and the Planning Board agreed to review that factor. Mr. Sacco questioned how the new regulations would be enforced and whether the Town had the resources to administer what appeared to be a complicated regulations. Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Sorensen responded that the regulations would be administered in the same way as the other requirements in the Zoning By -Law. In most cases a building permit would be needed; other cases are triggered by complaints and some by the building inspectors. There was a consensus of the Board of Selectmen to support Article 14 in concept. 77. Article 15, Rezone to CG: Mrs. Flemings explained this amendment would redesignate two CB districts, one in East Lexington and the other at Worthen Road - Bedford Street, to CG districts because Articles 16 and 17 propose unique provi- sions tailor-made to Lexington Center. It would not be appropriate to have those unique requirements apply to the other CB districts. Discussion centered on whether or not the Board of Selectmen could exercise land use type of controls in the granting of licenses for liquor stores and amusements centers. Additional informa- tion will be obtained from Town Counsel on that point. It was agreed the Board of Selectmen would support Article 15 in principle. Joint Meeting of Board of Selectmen March 31, 1984 and the Planning Board 2 78. Article 16, Center Parking: Mrs. Smith outlined the Planning Board's objec- tives for this amendment and reviewed the "Land Use and Development Policies for Lexington Center" adopted by the Planning Board. Mr. Marshall commented that there appeared to be a fundamental policy difference. The Planning Board's approach was that the responsibility for providing all the parking spaces needed for new development should rest entirely with the developer. Mr. Marshall thought that the Town should share in the responsibility, both for making up the existing deficit of parking spaces and for meeting some of the responsibilities for new floor space. Mr. McLaughlin stated he was closer to the Planning Board's position on the division of responsibility. He thought the Town should agree to attempt to make up the existing deficit but should not commit to a responsibility for providing some of the parking for new development. Discussion swung to permitting a developer to make a payment to the Town for park- ing spaces in lieu of actually building the spaces. Mr. McLaughlin inquired whether the issue was one of principle or price, i.e., the adequacy of the per space con- tribution proposed in the Chamber of Commerce's alternative. Mrs. Smith said the Planning Board was not opposed to the principle of an "in lieu of" payment but there must be a guarantee the parking spaces will be provided. It was concerned about an open-ended situation in which money sits in escrow for a number of years and the parking spaces are not built. The $6000 per space payment, proposed by the Chamber of Commerce, is not enough to cover the Town cost of a space in a multi- level garage. Mr. Marshall was concerned that the absence of a "payment in lieu of" provision resulted in a real deterrent to growth in Lexington center. Another major item of discussion was a moratorium on new construction in Lexington center while this subject received more study. Mr. Sacco thought that Article 16 should not be adopted this year because it has numerous implications that are not yet understood. Mr. Marshall stated his dilemma that more time for analysis and discussion would be desirable but there was an obligation to do something about the problem this year. Mr. Hutchinson reported that Town Counsel's research showed that the Board of Selectmen, by itself, could not impose a building moratorium on Lexington center. A moratorium would have to be voted by the Town Meeting as an amendment to the Zoning By -Law and would have to be to a time certain. Both the moderator and Town Counsel believe the wording of the article is broad enough to include a moratorium in the motion, or by an amendment from the floor. Mr. McLaughlin suggested it might be desirable to have a moratorium provision drafted, to be held in reserve, if the article fails. Mrs. Smith said the Planning Board knew this was a complicated question with some difficult policy decisions and had taken the extraordinary step of starting the process in November to provide sufficient time for discussion and public input. She thought there was sufficient data and the issues were clearly drawn. She doubted whether a year's delay would add much new to the debate and that the Town should get on with making the decision. The Planning Board is opposed to a one- year moratorium and believes the amendment should be voted up or down. Mr. McLaughlin raised questions as to the parking demand factors as they were modi- fied to apply to the CB district only. He thought the factors for retail space might be too tight and should be loosened and the factor for medical offices might be too liberal and should be tightened. Mrs. Smith agreed to provide more support data on how the Planning Board had arrived at those factors. [1 1 Joint Meeting of Board of Selectmen March 31, 1984 and the Planning Board 3 A poll of Selectmen was taken to determine a position on Article 16. Mrs. Battin and Mr. Eddison support the amendment in the form it is proposed by the Planning Board. Mr. Marshall would be in favor of two amendments: 1) to permit the "pay- ment in lieu of" procedure to meet a developer's parking responsibility, and 2) a more liberal demand factor for retail space, with no change in the demand factor for office space. If those two amendments failed, he would support the Planning Board's proposal. Mr. Sacco thought the Planning Board's proposal should be defeated; he would support Article 16 if the amendment proposed by the Chamber of Commerce were included. Mr. McLaughlin wanted answers to some of the technical questions he had raised; in general, he was closer to the Planning Board than to the Chamber of Commerce. In sum, the majority of the Board of Selectmen supports the concept of adopting a parking regulation for Lexington center; there is not agreement on the "payment in lieu of" procedure or on the appropriate demand factors for determining parking requirements. 79. Article 17, CB, Height Restriction: Mrs. Uhrig explained that the present regulations allowed much larger buildings than had been built. The Lexington Square development, about which there had been much public comment regarding its scale, was still well within current regulations. The Planning Board had considered the Chamber of Commerce's proposal that 2112 stories be the height limit but did not favor that amendment because the additional half story inevitably means more office space which would further aggravate the parking problem. There was some discussion among the Selectmen but no poll of the Board was taken to determine a position. 80. Article 18, CR, Floor Space Limit: Due to the lateness of the hour, it was agreed to discuss this amendment, which has. important policy considerations, at another time. The two Boards should meet again on that proposal. At 1:39 p.m., the Planning Board left to reconvene in Room G-15 for its own business. At 1:59 p.m. the Board reconvened in Room G-15. 81. Presentation to Information Meeting: The first deliberative session of the Town Meeting, scheduled for Monday, April 2, will be opened and then the Town Meet- ing will be adjourned so that an information meeting, to replace the one snowed out on March 29, can be held. The Board discussed how to present Articles 14-17. It was agreed to discuss each article separately, leading with a brief presentation and review of the material contained in the report, while leaving ample time for questions. It was agreed the Board's strategy would be to attempt to defeat those substantive amendments that have surfaced to date. If some of those amendments are adopted or new amendments appear, the Board would request the article be tabled so that it can review technical draftsmanship problems that might arise. The proposed motions have a number of cross references and other technical features that could be deva- stated by "simple" amendments from the floor of the Town Meeting. It was agreed Mr. Bowyer would talk with Selectman McLaughlin about the parking demand factors in Articles 14 and 16. The meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m. �� Judith J. Uhrig, Clerk